Nokia admits there may still be some Alcatel Lucent skeletons in the closet

Finnish kit vendor Nokia has filed its annual report with the SEC and in it flagged up some legacy issues from Alcatel Lucent that may still be a problem.

In the lengthy ‘risk factors’ section, Nokia indicates that, even years after it completed the acquisition of Alcatel Lucent, it’s still digging up stuff that may present some kind of threat to the company. Here’s the relevant passage in full.

“During the course of the ongoing integration process, we have been made aware of certain practices relating to compliance issues at the former Alcatel Lucent business that have raised concerns. We have initiated an internal investigation and voluntarily reported the matter to the relevant regulatory authorities, with whom we are cooperating with a view to resolving the matter. The resolution of this matter could result in potential criminal or civil penalties, including the possibility of monetary fines, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, brand, reputation or financial position.”

Asked for further comment on the matter Nokia just stressed that “although this investigation is in a relatively early stage, out of an abundance of caution and in the spirit of transparency, Nokia has contacted the relevant regulatory authorities regarding this review.” There’s no reason not to take that statement at face value at this stage, but while the extent of the material effect this could have on Nokia remains uncapped it will surely remain a significant concern.

Iran is also addressed in the risks section, with Nokia noting the dilemma that, while Europe is relaxing its sanctions against the country, the US is moving in the other direction and ramping them up. “As a European company it will be quite challenging to reconcile the opposing foreign policy regimes of the US and the EU,” it laments.

Since the US has shown an unlimited capacity for vindictiveness towards companies that do business with Iran Nokia has sensible decided not to do any more business there for the time being. “Although we evaluate our business activities on an ongoing basis, we currently do not intend to accept any new business in Iran in 2019 and intend to only complete existing contractual obligations in Iran in compliance with applicable economic sanctions and other trade-related laws,” said the filing.

Lastly the risks section also mentions HMD Global, which licenses the Nokia brand to put on its smartphones. It doesn’t make reference to any specific case but notes “Nokia has limitations in its ability to influence HMD Global in its business and other operations, exposing us to potential adverse effects from the use of the Nokia brand by HMD Global or other adverse development encountered by HMD Global that become attributable to Nokia through association and HMD Global being a licensee of the Nokia brand.” How timely.

Silicon Valley doesn’t know where to look in the 2020 Presidential race

Traditionally Silicon Valley has supported Democrat Presidential candidates but, with the resident internet giants increasingly becoming a political punching bag, this might change very quickly.

More specifically, Silicon Valley tends to lean towards ‘progressive’ Democrats. Many of those who would want to be included in this list have been running events in California recently to woo voters and potential donors alike, but these are candidates which have not been friendly to the internet giants in recent months.

Some of those who would call themselves ‘progressive’ Democrats include California Senator Kamala Harris, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren and New Jersey Senator Corey Booker, all of which have made moves against the technology giants for varying reasons. Harris and Booker have sponsored or supported bills which would place greater scrutiny on acquisitions, while Warren made the outlandish promise to break-up big tech and reverse certain acquisitions.

While Warren’s promise might end up meaning very little, we suspect there is too much of a focus on popularity instead of practicality, she has been the focal point of some criticism. Texas Representative Beto O’Rourke, another confirmed candidate, poked fun at Warren’s approach instead suggesting the digital economy should be more tightly regulated, avoiding the difficulties of breaking up incredibly complex, private organizations.

The prospect of new regulations is certainly a better option for the internet giants than Warren’s alternative, however O’Rourke is a bit of a difficult horse to back right now. Looking at O’Rourke’s website, it offers little (in fact, zero) insight into potential policies, but if you want to buy a t-shirt this is the place to go.

Of course, regulatory reform is top of the agenda for many of the potential candidates, and the technology industry is a hot topic here as well. Let’s start with the positives.

The majority of the candidates on show were supporters of net neutrality, battling against FCC Chairman Ajit Pai’s mission to undo the protections. Of the potential candidates, Washington Governor Jay Inslee might steal the crown here.

California might have grabbed the headlines for introducing localised net neutrality rules, potentially paving the path for a constitutional crisis, however it was Inslee who was the first to put pen to paper. Washington’s localised net neutrality rules were introduced in March 2018, six months ahead of California.

More positive news focuses on the Lifeline Program, an initiative which helps poorer families access broadband options. This is another area which felt the fury of Pai’s administration, though several of the candidates opposed the cutting of funds. Warren, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand are three candidates which would support the Lifeline Program.

Former Maryland Congressman John Delaney is another who would want to shake the infrastructure game up. Sticking with the rural digital divide, Delaney is proposing the formation of an Infrastructure Bank, with funds of $50 billion, to help close the virtual chasm. This might sound attractive, but Delaney shares the same anti-China rhetoric as President Donald Trump. And that has been working out really well.

Should one of these individuals win the keys to the White House, the FCC could be in-line for yet another shake-up.

Now onto the negative side of regulatory reform. The privacy and data-handling activities of the internet giants have come under a lot of scrutiny and criticism over the last few months. This is unlucky to change, and perhaps will become a lot more aggressive as politicians search for PR points. This is a popularity contest after all.

Almost every candidate is calling for more regulatory reform, pulling down the curtain which hides the data machine fuelling the sharing economy. No-one who is involved in the data sharing economy, internet giants and telcos alike, want too many of these practises exposed as it would lead to public backlash. The industry has allowed the education of the general public to fall too far behind technological developments; any bold revelations will be scary.

Two candidates are setting themselves out from the pack with bold regulatory change, Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar and tech entrepreneur Andrew Yang.

Klobuchar’s idea is to introduce a digital dividend on participants of the sharing economy. A levy would be placed on any company which transfers personal data to a third-party, penalising those who monetize data. Those who collect data and use it internally, current or new product development for example, would not be included in the tax.

Yang on the other hand is perhaps proposing the most revolutionary idea; Universal Basic Income (UBI). Effectively, every person over the age of 18 in the US would be entitled to apply to receive $1,000 per month. Yang claims one in three jobs is under risk from automation and AI, therefore the money will help people compensate for this.

The UBI would be funded by consolidating all welfare payments for efficiencies, a new value added tax (VAT), new revenues through increased consumer disposable income and improvements to other areas such as healthcare. However, we suspect this would not cover the outgoings, so it would not be unfair to assume a tax would be placed on those companies benefiting from automation.

Another development mid-way through last year was an attack on the state sales tax regime which the eCommerce giants have enjoyed for so long. These rules would effectively end tax avoidance benefits so many national players have enjoyed by locating head quarters in states like Delaware. Gillibrand, Sanders, Warren and Klobuchar were Senators to voted in favour of the state led digital sales tax.

What is worth noting is policies are still in their early days, and the genuine lobbying from industry will not have started yet. Who knows what the headline policies will be in the run-up to the 2020 Presidential Election, but the Democrats aren’t looking as Silicon Valley friendly as previous years.

Europe fines Google another €1.5 billion after belated Android concession

US search giant Google has received yet another fine from the European Commission, this time for abusing its dominant position in online advertising.

Specifically this ruling refers to ads served against Google search results embedded in third party websites. The EC doesn’t like the way Google used to go about this and, having reviewed loads of historical contracts between Google and these other websites, found the following:

  • Starting in 2006, Google included exclusivity clauses in its contracts. This meant that publishers were prohibited from placing any search adverts from competitors on their search results pages. The decision concerns publishers whose agreements with Google required such exclusivity for all their websites.
  • As of March 2009, Google gradually began replacing the exclusivity clauses with so-called “Premium Placement” clauses. These required publishers to reserve the most profitable space on their search results pages for Google’s adverts and request a minimum number of Google adverts. As a result, Google’s competitors were prevented from placing their search adverts in the most visible and clicked on parts of the websites’ search results pages.
  • As of March 2009, Google also included clauses requiring publishers to seek written approval from Google before making changes to the way in which any rival adverts were displayed. This meant that Google could control how attractive, and therefore clicked on, competing search adverts could be.

EC google ad graphic

Taken at face value this would appear to be a clear abuse of Google’s dominant position and it seems to have got off pretty lightly, since it got a much bigger fine for abusing Android’s dominant position last year, on which more below. The EC has been pretty consistent in its position on dominant US tech players deliberately seeking to restrict competition, just ask Microsoft and Intel, so none of this can have come as a surprise to Google.

“Today the Commission has fined Google €1.49 billion for illegal misuse of its dominant position in the market for the brokering of online search adverts,” said Commissioner in charge of competition policy Margrethe Vestager. “Google has cemented its dominance in online search adverts and shielded itself from competitive pressure by imposing anti-competitive contractual restrictions on third-party websites. This is illegal under EU antitrust rules. The misconduct lasted over 10 years and denied other companies the possibility to compete on the merits and to innovate – and consumers the benefits of competition.”

As the quote indicates, Google isn’t doing this anymore, but only packed it in once the EC flagged it up in 2016, so that’s still a decade of naughtiness. For some reason Google also chose today to show some belated contrition for one of the things it got fined for last year: forcing Android OEMs to preinstall Google Search and the Chrome browser.

In a blog post amusingly entitled Supporting choice and competition in Europe, Google SVP of Global Affairs Kent Walker started by stressing there’s nothing he loves more than healthy, thriving markets. Having said that he went on to make it clear that its most recent move to improve competition was taken solely to get the EC off its back.

“After the Commission’s July 2018 decision, we changed the licensing model for the Google apps we build for use on Android phones, creating new, separate licenses for Google Play, the Google Chrome browser, and for Google Search,” wrote Walker. “In doing so, we maintained the freedom for phone makers to install any alternative app alongside a Google app.

“Now we’ll also do more to ensure that Android phone owners know about the wide choice of browsers and search engines available to download to their phones. This will involve asking users of existing and new Android devices in Europe which browser and search apps they would like to use.”

How touching. Presumably today was some kind of deadline for Google to comply or else. The matter of browser choice is highly reminiscent of Europe’s case against Microsoft for bundling Internet Explorer with Windows. The prime beneficiary of that was, you guessed it, Google, which now accounts for around two thirds of European desktop browser share (see chart), achieved through merit rather than cheating. How sad then, so see history repeating itself on mobile.

So that takes the total amount Europe has fined Google to €8.25 billion. In response to a question after her announcement (below) Vestager revealed the EC has some kind of fine ceiling of 10% of annual revenues so, since Google brought in around €120 billion last year that still leaves plenty of room for further fines if Google keeps getting funny ideas. Incidentally she also revealed that the fines get distributed to member countries, not trousered by the EC itself, which is reassuring.

Source: StatCounter Global Stats – Browser Market Share

Europe cools internet monopoly rhetoric

Almost every politician around the world is currently using Silicon Valley as a metaphoric punching bag, but the European Commission will not be drawn into the monopolies debate.

While 2020 Presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren has painted a target on the backs on the internet giants, Europe has once again proven it will not be drawn into making such short-sighted and shallow promises. Warren is effectively warming up for the world’s biggest popularity contest, and perhaps hasn’t considered the long-term realities of the dismantling of companies such as Facebook and Google.

Speaking at the South by Southwest festival in Austin (thank you Recode for the transcript), Margrethe Vestager, the European Commissioner for Competition, made a very reasonable and measured statement.

“We’re dealing with private property, businesses that are built and invested in and become successful because of their innovation,” said Vestager.

“So, to break up a company, to break up private property, would be very far-reaching. And you would need to have a very strong case that it would produce better results for consumers in the marketplace than what you could do with sort of more mainstream tools.”

Vestager’s point is simple. Don’t punish a company because of its success. Don’t make rash decisions unless there is evidence the outcome will be better than the status quo. While the fence is proving to be very comfortable, it is a logical place to sit now.

Following up with the European Commission press team, Telecoms.com was told the Commission does not have an official position when it comes to breaking up the internet monopolies. Vestager’s comments are representative of the Commission, and it will evaluate each case on its own merit. Effectively, the breaking up the monopolies is a last resort, and will only be done so in extreme circumstances.

This position is supported by a recent report, put together for HM Treasury in the UK by former Chief Economist to President Obama, Professor Jason Furman. Furman suggests new rules and departments need to be created for digital society, but monopolies, when regulated and governed appropriately, can be good for the progression of products, services and the economy overall.

This will of course be an unpopular opinion, but it makes sense. Sometimes there simply isn’t the wealth to share around. Monopolies are perhaps needed to create efficiencies and economies of scale to ensure progress is made at a suitable pace. However, the right regulatory framework needs to be in place to ensure this dominant position is not abused. A catch-all position should not be welcomed.

This is where the European Commission has been playing a notable role. Numerous times over the last few years, technology giants have been punished for creating and abusing dominant market positions, take Google as an example with Android antitrust violations last June, though it has not gone as far as breaking up these empires. The key here is creating a framework which encourages growth across the board but does not punish success.

Some would argue success in the pursuit of this delicately balanced equation has been incredibly varied, but this should not form the foundation of rash decisions and potential irreversible actions. Big is not necessarily bad.

This is the marquee promise of Senator Elizabeth Warren. In attempting to woo the green-eyed contradictory wannabee capitalists of Middle America, the Presidential contender has promised to split up the internet giants. The complexities and realities of this promise do not seem to have been thoroughly thought out, and it does seem to be a shallow attempt to lure the favour of those who seek fortunes but are unable to congratulate those who have found them.

That said, there are Presidential candidates who are suggesting good ideas. Senator Amy Klobuchar has suggested companies who monetize data through relationships with third-parties should be taxed. This is somewhat of a radical idea, but we do quite like the sound of it.

Firstly, for those companies who say they are collecting data to ‘improve customer experience’, there would be no impact. If the data is being used to enhance current or create new services, and therefore kept in-house, then fair enough. However, if the company is moving data around the digital ecosystem, monetizing personal information, why not place a levy on this type of activity. It might just encourage these companies to be more responsible when more scrutiny is being placed on these transactions.

This is the challenge we are all facing nowadays; the digital economy is a different beast and needs to be tamed using different techniques, regulations and practices. We all know this, but we haven’t actually figured out how to do it.

This is why we kind of like the non-committal, hands-off approach from the European Commission. For an organization which usually likes to run wild with the red-tape, this seems to be a much more sensible approach. Over regulating nowadays could create a patch-work from hell which would only have to be undone. It might seem like a cop-out, but governments should let business be business, while casting a watchful eye over developments.

When no-one really knows how the future is going to evolve, regulation is needed to hold companies accountable and protections are needed to safeguard the consumer. But rash decisions and ridiculous promises are the last thing anyone wants.

RCom boss opts to pay Ericsson bill rather than go to prison

Indian telco Reliance Communications owed kit vendor Ericsson millions of dollars but didn’t feel like paying up. The threat of jail time seems to have changed its mind.

At the start of the year Ericsson requested RCom Chairman Anil Ambani be locked up unless his company settles its debts but a couple of months later it still hadn’t coughed up. The Indian court gave him until 19 March to find the cash and now, with one day to spare, it’s being widely reported that Ambani managed to scrape together enough shrapnel to remain a free man.

The precise amount handed over was 462 crore rupees, which we’re going to take Reuters’ word for that being equivalent to around $67 million because we can’t get our head around India’s number system. That still seems to leave $10 million or so outstanding, but is presumably enough to placate the Indian courts for now.

Had he not paid Ericsson Ambani would have been held in contempt of court because it had been judged that he had the cash handy, but just felt like holding onto it. We’ve all felt that from time to time and, if we’re honest, sometimes it’s only the law that keeps us honest. RCom’s shares were down 9% at time of writing and are trading at around the quarter of their price a year ago.

Vivendi denounces TIM board

The emotional level of the custody battle for TIM has reached a new pitch, with Vivendi starting to lose its composure.

“Vivendi denounces the behaviour of the Elliott-nominated Telecom Italia (TIM) Board members who yesterday rejected by a majority vote the report issued by the company’s Board of Statutory Auditors, a totally independent body, citing serious irregularities related to the company’s governance and its Board,” opened Vivendi’s latest salvo, which claimed to be seeking to re-establish the truth.

It was issued in quick response to the TIM board’s own response to Vivendi’s previous moan about a recent auditor’s report – you see how convoluted this is getting. It unsurprisingly thinks the perspective of the TIM board “…fails to mention several acts of serious misconducts by the Chairman and the lead independent director, who did not inform all independent directors in the same manner and were clearly selective in their interactions.”

Here are the questions Vivendi reckons remain unanswered:

  • Why did the Chairman organize the preparatory meeting concerning the dismissal of Amos Genish with the sole participation of the ten Board members designated by Elliott?
  • As widely reported by the Italian press, why did at least one preparatory meeting take place in the presence of only the ten Board members nominated by Elliott prior to the November 18, 2018 Board meeting?
  • Did the Chairman have any contact with any of Elliott’s representatives before or after the Board meetings of the 13th and 18th of November?
  • What was discussed at the meeting between the Chairman and the representatives of at least one minority shareholder that occurred on the 12th of November 2018?
  • What were the criteria used in the selection of the legal advisor for a decision as important as the dismissal of the CEO when it was well known that the same law firm has represented Elliott in the past and even sued TIM in recent months?
  • Does the Chairman believe he still has the confidence of the minority Board members, the Board of Statutory Auditors and the market?
  • Has the Chairman considered stepping down from the Board, in light of the findings of serious breaches in his duties that have emerged from the Report of the Board of Statutory Auditors?

In common with its opponents Vivendi also has a special website for its propaganda in this matter. It wants both the statutory auditors and CONSOB, the Italian securities regulator, to look into this further because it doesn’t think the Elliott-dominated board of TIM can be trusted to ‘self-police’. Ultimately, of course, Vivendi wants to restore its own dominance of the board, because it did such a great job of self-policing last time.

TIM board slaps down Vivendi moans

It took the TIM board a few days to respond to a bunch of accusations thrown at it by Vivendi, but the result was pretty comprehensive.

At the start of the week we reported that the battle between French conglomerate Vivendi and activist investor Elliott for control of Italian operator group TIM had degenerated to the point of resembling an acrimonious custody battle. The latest initiative from Vivendi was to accuse the TIM board of bad behaviour and state that this was the result of it being dominated by Elliott nominees.

That same board has now responded, laying out six Vivendi accusations and addressing each one at considerable length. We’re not going to lie to you, dear reader, the response is far from being a riveting read. But such is our devotion to duty here at Telecoms.com that we’ve digested the essence so you don’t have to. Italics denotes a direct copy from the document and regular font denotes our summaries of the TIM response.

Essentially, according to shareholder Vivendi and Mr de Puyfontaine, the Board is alleged to have:

(i) executed an unwarranted impairment test process which allegedly resulted in an equally unwarranted writedown of goodwill for a grand total of 2 billion euros in the interim report on operations at 30 September 2018;

  • The reasons for this have already been published and the process was signed off by loads of expert third parties. Furthermore the decision was overwhelmingly approved by the board, including Amos Genish.

(ii) utilised the circumstances that led to the impairment to revoke the powers assigned to Mr Amos Genish;

  • He was doing a rubbish job and there’s loads of evidence to prove it.

(iii) breached the rules of governance in the process that led to the aforementioned revocation;

  • He was doing such a rubbish job that we couldn’t waste any time in replacing him as CEO.

(iv) breached the rules of governance in the process whereby powers were attributed to Mr Luigi Gubitosi;

  • See previous answer.

(v) breached the current regulations on the occasion of Vivendi’s request for a TIM shareholders’ meeting to be called to:

(a) appoint the external auditors for the period 2019-2027;

(b) revoke the mandates of five directors, in the persons of Fulvio Conti, Alfredo Altavilla, Massimo Ferrari, Dante Roscini and Paola Giannotti de Ponti, and

(c) appoint five Directors, in the persons of Franco Bernabè, Rob van der Valk, Flavia Mazzarella, Gabriele Galateri di Genola and Francesco Vatalaro, to replace those whose mandates were revoked;

  • We already addressed this. Everything was done by the book and loads of experts will back us up on that.

(vi) breached current law on the occasion of the announcement to the market of preliminary 2018 results below the consensus and prudent estimates for the first half of 2019, allegedly thus causing a fall in the share price, as well as a loss of trust among investors.

  • On the contrary the law obliged us to make that announcement.

The response concludes by noting, as it was bound to, that Vivendi’s accusations are groundless and everything the board’s actions have been exemplary and beyond reproach. Vivendi can’t have expected anything else, but at least it forced the board to explain itself fully ahead of the shareholder meeting at the end of this month. It will presumably spend the intervening time picking holes in it.

Oracle reports flat growth as cloud segment booms

As a late-comer to the increasingly profitable cloud segment, Oracle has yet to make more than a minor dent, and this quarter appears to be another demonstration of mediocrity.

The company stopped reporting its cloud business revenues as a standalone during last year, so it is difficult to give a complete picture, though total revenues tell a part of the story. Total Revenues were $9.6 billion, down 1% year-on-year, though once constant currencies are applied the boost was 3%. Combined with a outlook which promises a range of 0% growth to negative 2% (1% to 3% growth in constant currency), its not necessarily the prettiest of pictures.

This is not to say Oracle is in a terrible position, the company is still profitable, and the growth prospects of the cloud segment encourage optimism, but it is not capturing the fortunes of its competitors.

Despite the heritage and continued influence of this business, perhaps we should not be surprised Oracle is not tearing up trees today. Back in 2008, CTO and founder Larry Ellison described the technology industry as the only segment “which is more fashion driven than women’s fashion”, suggesting cloud was nothing more than a passing fad.

Hindsight is always 20/20, but after this condemning statement about the embryonic cloud industry you can see why Oracle is reporting average numbers while others are hoovering up the cloud cash. Despite this late start, in 2016 Oracle felt it had caught up, with Ellison declaring “Amazon’s lead is over” during an earnings call.

While executives can make all the claims they like, reeling off various customer wins and pointing towards heritage in the technology industry, the numbers speak for themselves. Oracle is not profiting from the cloud bonanza in the same way competitors are.

Alongside the effectively flat revenue growth, Non-GAAP net income in Q3 was down 8% to $3.2 billion, while the merged cloud revenues and license support unit grew, it was only by roughly 1.1%. When you consider AWS, Google, IBM, Microsoft and Alibaba are all quoted numbers which are notably higher than this, it does paint a relatively gloomy picture.

Recent data from Synergy suggests revenues for 2018 passed the $250 billion across seven key cloud services and infrastructure market segments, operator and vendor revenues, representing a 32% increase year-on-year. Oracle will of course not be applicable for all of these segments however the overarching cloud trends are incredibly positive.

That said, perhaps the most damning piece of evidence is these numbers met analyst expectations. The team should be applauded for this fact however, it does suggest the analyst community no-longer consider Oracle a front-runner in the technology world. If the estimates are mediocre when the ingredients for success are so abundant, it doesn’t make for the most positive perception of one of yesteryears heavyweights.

Ericsson loses another senior exec

Ericsson lifer Rafiah Ibrahim, currently its Head of Market Area Middle East & Africa, is calling it a day after 23 years at the company.

To be precise Ibrahim is going to step down from her current position, which she has held for a couple of years, at the end of August and assume the new role of ‘Advisor to the CEO’. But since all precedent under the current CEO Börje Ekholm is that ‘Advisor’ is just a euphemism for ‘gardening leave’, we’d be surprised if Ibrahim was still with the company in 2020.

“Rafiah has been a very important leader in our sales and delivery organization,” said Ekholm. “In her latest assignment she successfully led the merger of two important markets, Middle East & Africa, increasing customer value and securing scale and efficiency as well as implementing a robust operational structure. In addition, Rafiah has built strong customer relationships across the region not least visible in the recently announced 5G contracts. Rafiah has been a valued member of the Executive Team and I look forward to continuing to work with her in her new role.”

The workload of Ericsson’s executive recruitment team is starting to mount up. We still don’t know who is going to replace Helena Norrman to head up the marketing and there seems to have been a steady trickle of senior departures since Ekholm took over. No doubt this is all part of the grand plan, which seems to be going OK, but it does make you wonder about morale at the top table and we must assume Ibrahim was still happy with everything when this corporate vid was published towards the end of last year.

 

F5 makes agile move with $670 million NGNIX acquisition

App security outfit F5 is buying open-source application platform specialist NGINX to augment its multi-cloud offering.

F5 is hardly the first to notice the importance of the cloud in the evolution of the entire tech industry, nor is it unique in realising that open-source is a great way of making a multi-cloud environment work. But for a company of its size (revenues of $563 million in 2018) this certainly qualifies as putting your money where your mouth is.

“F5’s acquisition of NGINX strengthens our growth trajectory by accelerating our software and multi-cloud transformation,” said François Locoh-Donou, CEO of F5. “By bringing F5’s world-class application security and rich application services portfolio for improving performance, availability, and management together with NGINX’s leading software application delivery and API management solutions, unparalleled credibility and brand recognition in the DevOps community, and massive open source user base, we bridge the divide between NetOps and DevOps with consistent application services across an enterprise’s multi-cloud environment.”

“NGINX and F5 share the same mission and vision,” said Gus Robertson, CEO of NGINX. “We both believe applications are at the heart of driving digital transformation. And we both believe that an end-to-end application infrastructure – one that spans from code to customer – is needed to deliver apps across a multi-cloud environment. “I’m excited to continue this journey by adding the power of NGINX’s open source innovation to F5’s ADC leadership and enterprise reach. F5 gains depth with solutions designed for DevOps, while NGINX gains breadth with access to tens of thousands of customers and partners.”

Open source and DevOps are often referred to in the same breath as part of a broader narrative around ‘agility’. One of the main benefits of the move to the cloud is the far greater choice, efficiency and flexibility it promises, but without a culture geared towards exploiting those opportunities they’re likely to be wasted. With this acquisition F5 is positioning itself as a partner for telcos heading in an agile direction.

Here’s a diagram outlining the rationale of the move.

F5+NGINX